For the past ten years worldwide, questioning on the safety of mobile phone antennas has been increasing. Numerous scientific studies have revealed the adverse effects of electro- magnetic waves on health. Yet, most health agencies, industry representatives, and a portion the scientific community claim that current health standards adequately protect the public.

Earlier this year journalist Nancy Meritens and film director Jean Hèches completed their documentary Ondes, Science et Manigances [or Microwaves, Science and Lies], that demonstrates how the telecommunications industry creates doubt about harmful radiofrequency waves through the manipulation of science. Through interviews with several whistleblowers, including citizens, journalists, and scientists, this film reveals how, like the tobacco industry, the lobby of the mobile phone industry has built a strategy of “product defense” by artificially creating a scientific doubt about the harmful effects of electromagnetic waves. In addition to revealing collusion among various organizations including the World Health Organization (WHO), the film documents the actions of specific individuals like Emilie van Deventer of the WHO and Peter Valberg who works for the product defense firm Gradient.

Back in 1991, the then Finnish prime minister, Harri Holkeri, made a phone call that would go down in history, at least as far as trivia fans are concerned. This was the first call made using the GSM phone protocol that has since gone on to dominate mobile telecommunication networks around the world. In 2008, more than three billion people were connected to this network.

GSM is a so-called second generation technology and since then, it has been superseded by 3G and 4G networks. Now telecommunications policymakers around the world are considering switching off the GSM network and finding other uses for the radio frequencies allocated to it. The Chinese city of Macau is set to be the first, having planned to phase out its GSM networks from June next year. That may be a shortsighted decision. Today, German Corrales Madueňo and a few pals at Aalborg University in Denmark, say that the GSM system should become a dedicated network for intelligent machines to communicate with each other. They have calculated the capacity of such a network and how it could become the communications backbone of a new generation of smart meters.

Amazon's new idiot box, The Echo. A new smart surveillance device the NSA will love.

This is the latest in intrusive gadgets. Among other things it it records everything within the reach of its integrated microphones and then uploads everything into the “cloud” as it learns about you and your family. Warning: With this device don’t discuss anything near it that you don’t want to share with whomever hacks into the cloud.

Smart Meter Extortion -- Take Back Your Power!

Not only are they not smart, not power-saving, but they raise bills, cause fires, and empower snooping and control by Big Brother. As bad as those things are, what is most criminal is that they are is EXTREMELY detrimental to health, and the perpetrators know that but continue to push it anyway -- illegally, with complicity of government. They should all be in jail.

Josh del Sol was on Red Ice Radio a year ago, 10/10, to talk about his new film.

"I feel like crying, barfing, screaming, standing up with a bull horn, probably more now than nearly any other time in my life; and I've been awake to conspiratorial forces for nearly 30 years, being an activist my entire adult life.

"You did an excellent job with your film, covering the science, the politics, the corruption, the emotional elements.

"I want to blast this out to everyone I know. I'll be sending people to your website."

Josh has agreed to come on my FreeEnergyQuest radio show today, live, from 3-4 pm Pacific [GMT-7] as part of the Rense Radio Network. And, exclusively for our audience, you can watch Take Back Your Power for free, for the next 72 hours (until Fri Oct 24 at midnight GMT)! To watch it now, go to www.TakeBackYourPower.net, click "STREAM IT NOW" and enter this coupon code in the lower right: freeenergy (direct link). Please share the code... let's get this viral this week!

I had been aware off most everything he talked about in the film, and have been compiling what I find on our page about Smart Meters at PESWiki, but I had not realized the extent of the criminality behind this. It's much worse than I realized.

I had known that smart meters had some detrimental health effects, but I had not realized just how detrimental those were and that it affected EVERYONE -- not just electro-sensitive people. I don't know how many thousands of deaths can be attributed to these meters, but even a few dozen should be enough to raise the alarm, and now it is negatively affecting hundreds of millions, if not billions of people.

This shouldn't surprise us. I know well from my graduate work in Bio-Electro-Chemistry that humans are highly electrical beings. The nerve and brain impulses have an electrical component, most cells have a sodium-potassium pump that establishes an electrical potential across the membrane, which is used for signaling its on/off functions. Brain function can be monitored via Electroencephalography (EEG). Heart function is monitored using Electrocardiography (EKG). And there is a direct current potential from the torso to the limbs that changes potential when we sleep or are anesthetized. That potential can be manipulated to stimulate regeneration. Complete limb regeneration has been accomplished in frogs using this method. (The Body Electric) To think that we don't need to test the human body as to its response to electromagnetic radiation is criminal, given the knowledge level of those introducing these products.

The amount of dirty electricity pollution emitted by a smart meter is many orders of magnitude greater than cell phones -- which are a concern as well.

In his documentary, Josh interviews several people from the medical industry who have studied the effects of Smart Meters and have documented just how damaging they are. Here are a couple of images to illustrate, showing red blood cells before and after exposure to the Smart Meters:

Smart Meters cause tumors, sever headaches, restlessness, insomnia, anxiety, and seizures -- just to name a few things.

The class action lawyers should be getting busy on this. This is criminality in the extreme, using the trusted reputation of a public utility with complicity of governments to force people to accept smart meters, which don't save money but actually cost more, which are not smart, and which are seriously damaging their health.

The culpability just for fires caused by these meters should be enough to stop the industry in its tracks.Another criminal aspect that could easily be litigated in a class action suit is how expensive the electricity becomes following the installation of the meters. For example, a survey by Toronto Hydro showed about 80 percent of people using smart meters are seeing an increase, not a decrease in their bills. Sometimes, customers are seeing as much as a 1000% (10x) increase in their bill.

The extent of force the utilities have imposed in installing the meters -- against the wishes of their customers, breaking locks, breaking doors, in violation of "no smart meter" notices -- should also be litigated in class action suits.

Another class action suit looking for attorneys to carry it out is the hacking liabilities it creates, and the invasion of privacy and vulnerability of the leakage of that data.

Even if the utilities made it very easy for people to opt out, which they don't, they would still be criminally liable for the health detriment these meters impose.

The reason they have had the cooperation of governments is because of the level of control that these meters enable -- increasing big brother's ability to spy, snoop, monitor, control their citizens lives -- a treasonous violation of the unreasonable search and seizure provisions spelled out in the fourth amendment to the Constitution here in the United States. The film articulately takes on the whole surveillance state agenda that the smart meters empower. The tyrants who have taken over the governments of the world love such things, so they are more than happy to facilitate their rollout. They should also be named in the class action suits -- not the governments, which are supposed to be representatives of their citizens, and would have to pay for such litigation through taxation of their citizens -- but the people in the government who have been complicit, should be held personally liable, answerable by heavy fines and jail time.

This movie is a fantastic tool, not just for waking people up to the dangers the smart meters impose -- to urge them to replace those meters with the analogue, not-EMF-radiating meters -- but to serve as a very powerful example of conspiracy in modern times by the corporatocracy that is pushing toward a world police state, enslaving humanity, rather than liberating it.

Speaking of corporatocracy, one of the whistleblower voices in the film is Jeffrey Armstrong, former Apple executive. He is no fan of Smart Meters, and actually sees this situation as unprecedented in world history, and a touchstone test for humanity to rise up against their out-of-control masters who have violated their trust. "Public endangerment is not an acceptable by-product," he said.

The film has a number of other high-level representatives of government and industry, including former Premier of British Columbia, Canada. Emmy Award-winning producer Jerry Day of http://FreedomTaker.com also contributes some great commentary to the film, as does Foster Gamble of Thrive.

Day points out: "An opt-out is an agreement to pay to not be harmed. An opt-out is volunteering into extortion. An opt-out says, 'If I don't pay you, you have the right to harm me.' That doesn't work." This quote is followed by the film displaying the text: "Smart Extortion."

Retired police officer, Len Miller, VDP, also calls this what it is: extortion. "They are embarking on a monstrous act of deception. They are saying one thing, but you're getting something else. I see that as a form of extortion. ...That's a criminal offense. As a fraud cop, I'm just wondering when the world is going to wake up."

Back on June 21, 2013, I posted a blog entry about the fundraiser for this film. I have to say they have gone way beyond my expectations in how well they have done.

I strongly urge you to watch this with your family, share it with your friends, pass it forward in social media, post it to your blogs. Let's see how far we can spread this in the three days we have for this free promotion. But even beyond that, the viewing price is cheap, and shouldn't keep anyone from watching it.

Not only should you "opt out," but you should say "hell no" to whoever is running your utilities, and any government involved in allowing them to force these on their customers. They are all liable and should be put on notice that they are looking at jail time for complicity in damaging the health and vitality of their customers, including the loss of life. The ramifications are huge. They should stop getting off, and should start paying up. If we let the people who are in for marijuana out of jail/prison, there will be plenty of room for these true criminals.

Meanwhile, let's help get these exotic free energy technologies to market so that people have viable alternatives to grid power, rendering them obsolete. It turns out that Josh and his associate, Aeon, know about a lot of alternative energy solutions, and I hope to have them on soon, possibly this next Thursday, to talk about those.# # #

12,000 Canaries Can't Be Wrong: What's Making Us Sick and What We Can Do About ItHardcover– June 10, 2014

How does our environment impact our health, and what can we do about it? 12,000 Canaries Can’t Be Wrong is a culmination of Dr. Molot’s 30 years of experience seeing more than 12,000 patients with environmentally linked illnesses. He explains how the environment contributes to the development and progression of many common conditions and illnesses, including chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia and other pain disorders, chemical sensitivity, irritable bowel syndrome, allergies and asthma, diabetes, autistic spectrum disorder, and even obesity. Dr. Molot provides a nine-point plan that will make a positive difference to our health, and to the health of our children.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission on Friday published testing results for the as-yet-unannounced Beats Solo2 Wireless headphone, a Bluetooth-enabled version of the Apple-owned company's mid-tier Solo2.

Source: FCC

As seen in the image above, an illustration of regulatory label positioning, the Solo2 Wireless will take on the same general teardrop shape as Beats' current wired Solo2 headphones.

The FCC's radiation testing documents show the Solo2 Wireless will use a variety of legacy Bluetooth protocols, as well as Bluetooth 4.0, the same low-energy technology used in Beats' high-end Studio Wireless headphones. An internal battery will be charged via Micro USB, though specifications and runtime were not evaluated.

In addition to device labeling, a packaging sample is marked with Apple's Cupertino, Calif., address. The company is also listed in FCC documents as the device's developer and contact for testing.

Apple purchased Beats for $3 billion, netting the firm's hardware and software arms as part of the deal. Beats by Dre has so far been kept a separate brand from Apple's own headphone products, as the company promised after inking the deal in May.

Pricing and availability is not yet known, but as part Beats' mid-tier lineup, the Solo2 Wireless is expected to cost between $199 and $379, respective current pricing for the wired Solo2 and Studio Wireless headphones.http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/11/07/unannounced-beats-solo2-wireless-headphone-revealed-by-fcc-features-bluetooth-le

Argument preview: Local governments and reason-giving

Expanding wireless service to keep up with national demand requires new cell towers and infrastructure. But such towers are subject to zoning and regulatory approvals at the state and local levels, and states and localities, which traditionally control land use, do not always want new towers in their backyards. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, now part of the Federal Communications Act, strikes a compromise: state and local governments retain substantial power over siting and zoning decisions, but they do so subject to certain federally imposed substantive and procedural limitations. The Supreme Court interpreted one of these limitations two Terms ago in City of Arlington v. FCC, and it will confront another one when it hears argument Monday in T-Mobile South LLC v. City of Roswell.

At its simplest, Monday’s case is a statutory interpretation case. The specific provision at issue is 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii), which requires that state or local government decisions denying wireless infrastructure requests “shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.” The question presented is whether a document stating that an application has been denied, but providing no reasons for the denial, satisfies the statutory requirement. The case is thus the latest in the Court’s November-sitting string of cases interpreting federal statutes, and the parties here make traditional statutory-interpretation arguments about the Act’s text, structure, and purpose.

But the case also raises questions of administrative law and federalism. The administrative law question is the extent to which the phrase “substantial evidence” – which also appears in the Administrative Procedure Act and other federal statutes – is an administrative-law term of art that implies a requirement of reason-giving, and if so, whether such reasons must appear in a particular form. The federalism question, which is lurking but not substantially developed in the parties’ briefs, is whether administrative law doctrines developed for federal agencies should apply in the same way to state and local governments – here, an elected city council.

Background

This case arises from petitioner T-Mobile South’s application to build a 108-foot cell tower on a vacant lot in a residential neighborhood in the city of Roswell, Georgia (the respondent). The company proposed a “monopine”—a tower designed to look like a pine tree, branches and all, though this one would have stood at least twenty feet taller than surrounding trees. The city’s zoning department found that the application met the requirements in relevant city ordinances, and recommended approval of the application subject to several conditions. The city then held a public hearing at which a T-Mobile South representative and members of the public spoke. Five of the six members of the city council then made statements, with four expressing concerns and one of those four formally moving to deny the application. That motion passed unanimously. Two days later, the city sent T-Mobile South a letter stating that its application had been denied. The letter did not provide reasons for the denial, but did explain how to obtain the minutes from the hearing. At that time, only “brief minutes” were available; the city council did not approve detailed minutes recounting the council members’ statements until its next meeting, twenty-six days later.

A federal district court held that the city had violated Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii)’s “in writing” requirement by failing to provide, separate from the written record (here, the minutes and a hearing transcript), a written decision describing the reasons for the denial. The court granted an injunction ordering the city to approve the tower. The Eleventh Circuit reversed (and joined the short side of a circuit split), relying on intervening circuit precedent to hold that although a local government must give reasons for its denial, it suffices for those reasons to appear in the record rather than in a separate decision. The court concluded that the minutes of the meeting adequately explained the city’s reasons for denying T-Mobile South’s application.

The arguments

T-Mobile South’s primary argument is that the phrase “supported by substantial evidence” is an administrative-law “term of art” that necessarily implies a requirement of reason-giving. For this proposition, it cites, among other cases, the seminal administrative-law decision of SEC v. Chenery Corp. (“Chenery I”). T-Mobile South also argues that the term “decision” (as opposed to a mere “notification”) implies the transmission of reasons. T-Mobile South contends that these reasons must be stated in the “decision” itself, not just somewhere in the “written record,” because requiring a court to sift through the entire record to find reasons frustrates the Act’s provision for expedited judicial review; indeed, it makes any judicial review difficult. And this sort of delay, T-Mobile South stresses, is at odds with the Act’s aim of avoiding local-government impediments to the expansion of wireless coverage. T-Mobile South’s only nod to federalism echoes City of Arlington, in which the majority rejected as “faux-federalism” an argument that the FCC lacked authority to interpret the statutory phrase “reasonable period of time.” T-Mobile South argues that there, as here, Section 332(c)(7)(B) “explicitly supplants state authority.” T-Mobile South has amicus support from the Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, and several associations involved in providing wireless services.

The city does not make entirely clear whether its position is that the Act requires no reasons at all, or that reasons are required but may appear in the written record rather than in a separate decision. The city emphasizes that the plain text of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) says nothing about reason-giving, unlike other parts of the Act that require findings and statements of reasons. Roswell also argues that there is nothing unusual, much less impossible, about courts sifting through the local-government record to conduct substantial-evidence review. And it urges that engrafting a reason-giving mandate onto the “in writing” requirement would burden local government decision making, which often is done by lay people, and could raise Tenth Amendment concerns. The National League of Cities and other associations of state and local government officials, as amici supporting Roswell, emphasize that a “heightened ‘in writing’ requirement would also be misaligned with the practical realities of how elected local government bodies operate and the resource limitations they face.”

The Solicitor General, as an amicus supporting neither party, takes the position that a statement of reasons is required, but that the requirement can be satisfied if the reasons are “included in a contemporaneously available written record.” The Solicitor General argues that the city did not meet this requirement here, because although the meeting minutes made the reasons sufficiently clear, the city did not provide those minutes contemporaneously. T-Mobile South’s reply characterizes the Solicitor General’s proposed approach as an “operational nightmare” and contends that, in any event, the record fails to convey the council’s reasons with sufficient clarity. The reply brief also chides Roswell for its “woe is me” attitude, pointing out that state and local governments are fully capable of stating their reasons, and are routinely required to do so under a range of state and local laws.

What to watch for

One issue to watch for is the extent to which the Court (which now has three former administrative law professors) engages with T-Mobile South’s characterization of substantial evidence as an administrative law term of art implying reason-giving. It is not clear that the term carries that implication. Substantial-evidence review, which the Administrative Procedure Act prescribes for judicial review of formal agency proceedings, calls for courts to ensure that the administrative record provides some minimum quantum of evidentiary support for the decision. In Dickinson v. Zurko, for example, the Court said that the standard asks “whether a ‘reasonable mind might accept’ a particular evidentiary record as ‘adequate to support a conclusion’”; the Court has analogized it to the standard for reviewing jury findings, although the two standards are not identical. Federal administrative law surely does require agencies to give reasons for their decisions, and that reason-giving requirement and the substantial evidence requirement often travel together. But the reason-giving requirement itself is usually traced to Chenery I, a pre-APA doctrine of administrative common law, or to the APA’s arbitrary and capricious standard – not to the substantial-evidence standard. (The APA also requires agencies to state findings of fact and conclusions of law in formal proceedings). And if the Court is looking to administrative law principles more broadly, it’s also the Court’s practice, stated in a number of cases involving federal agencies, to “uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned.”

All of this raises the question of the extent to which principles of administrative law developed in the context of the Administrative Procedure Act and federal agencies should apply here (the APA does not apply to state and local entities). It’s hard to argue with T-Mobile South’s point that a clear, separate statement of reasons facilitates judicial review, or that reason-giving requirements help ensure deliberation by agencies and fairness to affected parties. But do principles of federalism change the analysis when state and local decision making is at issue? The Court has no clear doctrines guiding such analysis. Indeed, the case shines light on a doctrinal gap that Abbe Gluck and a student note have recently identified: what principles of interpretation and administrative law apply when federal courts review actions of state and local entities acting pursuant to federal statutory schemes? T-Mobile South rightly notes that the Court rejected a federalism argument under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) in City of Arlington, but that reasoning is not on all fours here; there, the question was whether a federal agency (the FCC) or a federal court would interpret the phrase “reasonable period of time” in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii), and the Court’s point was that state law was displaced either way. Here, the question is how robustly to interpret the “in writing” requirement – must reasons be provided at all? Must they be in a separate “decision” or simply evident in the record? Does the requirement apply in the same way to elected and unelected state and local bodies? The Justices may think that principles of federalism counsel in favor of meddling less in state and local procedures, at least where the reasons for the decision are evident in the record. On the other hand, the Justices may be persuaded by T-Mobile South that, especially given Congress’s evident desire to facilitate the development of wireless access, requiring state and local governments to give a written account of their reasons for denying wireless infrastructure applications is not too much to ask.

[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel to the petitioners in City of Arlington v. FCC, but the author of this post is not affiliated with the firm.]

The same day news spread that 29 year-old right-to-die advocate Brittany Maynard had ingested the barbiturates prescribed to her by her doctor and had made her choice to die with dignity a couple of days prior, another story hit the news. Nineteen year-old Lauren Hill, also a terminally-ill young woman, scored her first, and possibly only, basket of her life in her college basketball game. Apparently, Lauren has only weeks to live. Lauren was also diagnosed with an untreatable glioma, much like the one that lead to Brittany's death. Lost amid the tragically sad human-interest angle of these two stories is the question paramount in my mind: why did these two healthy, vibrant young women at the beginning of their adult lives contract these deadly brain tumors and why is no one discussing this question?

Rather than suffer the excruciating pain of therapies (radiation and chemotherapy) that would do little to prolong her life but cost much in terms of horrendous side-effects, or rather than suffer the agonizing pains of deterioration from the disease, Brittany chose to die when it was right for her. Commendably, Brittany sought to increase awareness of terminally-ill patients' right to choose their own path toward death. Similarly, Lauren wants to bring attention to brain tumors, for her and the numerous other young children suffering from them, and help to raise funds for research into treatments. These strong and caring young women surely serve as examples for others with their giving and selfless natures and they are certain to effect some much-needed change, but neither will change the fact that young people are being diagnosed with terminal brain tumors and little is being done to prevent them.

No one knows the precise etiology of brain cancers. Numerous environmental pollutants such as air pollution from automobiles, petrochemicals, pesticides, x-rays, and CT scans have been correlated with brain cancer incidences. Radiofrequency radiation, one of our newest and most prevalent pollutants, has also been provisionally linked to brain cancers. Radiofrequency energy is the non-ionizing radiation on the electromagnetic spectrum that emanates to and from our wireless electronic devices like computers, tablets, smartphones, cordless phones, and the "smart" meters that read our water and/or electric usage outside our homes. We are now completely bathed in this potentially harmful energy, which the World Health Organization classifies as a Class 2B carcinogen, even before we have gathered sufficient data as to its safety. But absence of evidence of harm is not the same as evidence of the absence of harm. Toxicological studies have demonstrated that radiofrequency radiation may damage DNA (among other cellular impairments) and lead to cancer (among other deleterious health effects). The epidemiological studies have been inconclusive; some say that there is no evidence of an increase in brain cancers; others show a link between brain tumors and heavy cell phone use. Moreover, we know that embryos, children, and teens at crucial stages in their development are even more vulnerable to the effects of environmental toxicants, like cell phone radiation, than are adults.

Now, think about the age of these two young women. They both belong to the Millennial generation. Both of their childhood and teenage years corresponded to the early-mid 1990s and early 2000s, when cell phones came into common use -- especially held to one's head and used as an oral communication device rather than for texting or internet. Given the lag time of cancer, it would not be a stretch to question whether their cancers could have been caused by cell phone usage.

I heard someone say the other day, when discussing Brittany Maynard, that it is likely the issue of the right-to-die may soon be cropping up more and more. When I learned of Brittany Maynard's story, I thought of what myself and some of my colleagues studying environmental health had said when cell phone usage seemed to become ubiquitous: it is likely that the issue of brain tumors may soon be cropping up more and more.

It may be that cell phones had nothing to do with these devastating cases of brain cancer in these young women. It may also be that radiofrequency radiation is not nearly as potentially harmful as I suggest it could be. However, independent scientific research (not compromised by government or industrial stakeholders) continues to mount that the toxicological and potential health effects of radiofrequency radiation are not negligible. And anyone who studies science knows that scientific findings are always conservative, and that they tend to err on the side of minimization rather than exaggeration. Furthermore, anyone who studies science history knows that no damage has been done by taking precaution against scientifically-suggested potential harms, but much damage has been done by waiting for definitive proof of these harms, as the European Environment Agency has shown in its two reports called Late Lessons From Early Warnings (1 and 2). Definitive proof of the direct health effects of cell phones and radiofrequency radiation may never be established now, since few to no one is unexposed to these transmissions; therefore, we have no control groups for adequate analysis.

Nevertheless, might we use these young women's heartbreaking stories to think more about the state of our health and our environments? Doctors have already warned that children should not be holding cell phones to their heads at young ages. Perhaps children should not be holding smartphones and tablets on their lapseither. Perhaps young women should not be storing smartphones in their bras. Perhaps many areas in Europe are right to eliminate WIFI and reinstate wired internet connections. Perhaps we should keep wireless-transmitting meters off of the sides of our homes, near where children sleep. Isn't the scientifically-established possible threat of these devices enough to make us do something for our children and their future? Any story of a young person suffering and dying before their life has really begun should be enough to make us scream to ourselves, "How could we have stopped this?!" Brittany Maynard and Lauren Hill should be reminders that we have not yet done enough, and we should be spending more time examining the myriad ways we may prevent such tragedies in the future.

DEADLINE EXTENSIONS: Please forward the information to all interested parties that the deadline for comments in opposition to the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range proposed in the Olympic Peninsula has been extended to November 28, 2014!

There have been several extensions and since I don’t know the parameters around how long the extensions are going on, it is important to do what we can with comment submissions ASAP, whether formal organization or private party, in order to get on the map with our ‘as many as possible’ objections and to become part of the notification list.

LOCAL/NATIONAL WILDERNESS AND WILDLIFE ISSUE: This is not just a local issue, since the Olympic Peninsula is one of the last non-tropical rain forests left in the world, is also classed as a World Heritage site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_National_Park and is a designated International Biosphere Reserve that draws visitors from local, regional and worldwide origins. The impact of an EMF warfare project in the Olympic Peninsula has implications that are staggering and far-fetched, environmentally, and for land animals and fisheries due to absurd comment by proponents of this ill-conceived project. They state that “large wildlife and humans will not be harmed” (emphasis added) and that the radiation beam will be upward pointed so that any birds will fly quickly through it with no effect on them, and that there is ‘no conclusive direct hazards to human tissues as a result of EM radiation”. All of these statements are taken out of context and refer specifically irrelevant factors, which make them factually incorrect when applied in specific context to the paradigm of preserving a national heritage monument, such as the Olympic National Park. Politically interpreted statements distort the original methodology of the research results, rendering their political applicability invalid and therefore not admissible as evidence of no harm. Further, the parameters of the upward directed beam are quantifiably inaccurate since it is impossible isolate the spread factor of EMF radiation, which is by definition omnidirectional and propagates its power-density in way that is proven to distort bird navigation mechanisms at a level that is not topically relevant to any standards for human tissue heating until blistering and heat burns. The data being quoted can be rebutted as, at least, intentionally misrepresentative of its original research parameters and therefore is not sufficient for dramatic mission changes in public policy and public interest aims for heritage sites and, at most, may constitute false statements so to encourage the Forest Service to act precipitously.

LOCAL/NATIONAL TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ISSUE: Quantifiably foreseeable destruction of local tourism and small business communities can be exhibited in revenue forecasting models up and down the Olympic Peninsula, and for any national businesses- even international visitors from Europe and the Pacific Rim- who obtain revenue by listing the Olympic Peninsula, and surrounds, as a destination site. Patently absurd is it to discount the immediate and long-term effects to tourism when, for example, any small group wildlife tourists will not be alarmed when encountering roving warning signs to ‘Keep Walking’ due to risk of radiation burns and blistering. This scenario is a prime facie branding catastrophe for small businesses that depend on repeat customers- a failure of Marketing 101 called ‘leading with a negative’- where customers can be predicted to divert to another more pristine wilderness than return to any site that hosts Electronic Warfare and the risk of radiation burns to a child or loved one. Worse, any success to dismantle the protections to this revered site can, and likely will, be used as a blueprint to effect the same usage changes to any other park’s mission and heritage, in any other national park in any other state.

BREACH OF THE PUBLIC’S TRUST: Interfering with the public’s unabridged access to a critical resource for recreation and preservation of at risk and endangered species habitat and migration may be a constitutional violation of due process and a breach of Congressional intent. Such a diversion of Congressional intent is not protected under FCC regulatory laws, nor the corresponding Code of Federal Regulations without enacting pre-emptive authority. Yet, language present in the project’s Environmental Assessment is consistent absence of this pre-emptive authority, relying on misrepresentation and an apparent fraud on the public to carry cause with violation of equal access to the public commons. Incorrect harmonization and application of FCC authority presented in even the most cursory read of the Environmental Assessment (EA), in fact, does not overcome safeguards for the public’s interest. A woefully short and inadequate version of this EA can be found at http://a123.g.akamai..net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/97011_FSPLT3_1665844.pdf. Further, when challenged under logic due process and reasonable access, such challenges have been proven supported with merit at the federal circuit court level, or have settled in favor of the reduction of exposure to EMF radiation under Americans with Disability Act. The proposed usage of a protected preserve for a military/industrial warfare project cannot comply with ADA reasonable accommodation requirements for removing barriers to access to public areas for those who suffer from disabling EMF Sensitization. The creation of an Electronic Warfare Range in the Olympic National Park constitutes a permanent and unreasonable barrier to access to those who are thus disabled and subjects disparate impact and unreasonable violation of due process for disenfranchised community whose underlying medical conditions are not subject to generalized population guidelines for regulatory exposure under SAR, or other power density driven radiation exposure guidelines.

These are only a few of the pointed objections that Wireless Education Action will make as our especial area of expertise in contribution to an NGO coalition aligned to stop this frivolous misuse of a treasured monument, a misuse where no clear and present danger exists to empower National Security pre-emptions over the public and State’s policy land development uses, and where other sites exists to conduct this work where that site will be less intrusive of the public’s constitutionally protected right to reject this proposal.

JOIN OUR COALITION: Wireless Education Action (WEA) is gathering a formal coalition of NGOs and interested parties, to provide a coordinated front in opposition to this ill-considered project. We are already in conversation with, or arranging strategic contacts with National and local Chapters of Audubon Society, National and local Chapters of Sierra Club, in conversation with local Chambers of Commerce in the Port Angeles area, with Washington State Tourism authorities at the county level, River Keepers’ local Chapter member, Soundkeepers, independent local tourism and marketing organizations (which will remain anonymous for now), and our friends across the border of Canada at Citizens for Safe Technology; we are in process of connection with Washington Fish & Wildlife, several Real Estate Brokerage associations discussing the loss of property values in the surrounding areas, and sovereign treaty violations that might impact the Quileute, Quinault, and Hoh Nations. If anyone wants to volunteer their time in contacts and establishing a coalition and network in opposition, please contact me for topic response coordination and strategic coalition operations at merrycallahan@comcast.net(wirelesseducationaction.org is undergoing a rehabilitation, and is ‘under construction’ at this time.)

LOCAL INTEREST AND NEAR SOURCE INFORMATION: Another site of interest is here, at a local newspaper, where you may find links and communities who are complaining in the accompanying blog of the stealthy-seeming and ineffective informative nature of notifying the public over this important topic at http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20140928/NEWS/309289934. The thread begins at a Peninsula News story that has a broad based on-line supportive commentary attached. Some of the commenters are arranging coalitions and providing each other with specs on equipment likely to be used, and information suggestive that the US Forest Department may be complicit in overreach by arranging that photography is no longer allowed in the Olympic National Park. I have not corroborated this anecdotal comment, but if true it speaks to the possibility that unreported and unauthorized operational Electronic Warfare testing might already be going on in the pristine reserve, which would be contrary to the Congressional intent to preserve the Olympic National Park as a federally protected site.

WE CAN WIN THIS FIGHT; HERE’S HOW: The attempt to codify a Pacific NW Electronic Warfare Range will not be blocked quickly, but it canbe stopped, with little more than perseverance and informed collaboration. Recently a similar resistance to industrial polluters overtaking the public’s interest was won in Oregon by the efforts of a coalition of NGOs, and others, whose actions put down a coal industry giant who sought to export 8 billion tons of coal per year down a railway on the Oregon side of the Columbia River Gorge corridor, endangering wildlife and polluting a scenic waterway of critical environmental importance, and whose pristine quality is critical to local economic sustainable businesses. The Oregon Department of State Lands sided with refusing to endanger the public’s interest in the conservation of a critical water source, the Columbia River, and we can persuade the US Forest staff to do the same in the Olympic Peninsula. Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility (OPSR) reports the win in their newsletter The Folded Crane: http://www.psr.org/chapters/oregon/assets/pdfs/oregon-psrs-the-folded-crane.pdf

A BLUEPRINT FOR THE WIN: OPSR’s win gives the rest of us a roadmap to success through an organized coalition against the giants among us who seek to suppress our voice and devour our right to a clean and toxin free environment. WEA walks in OPSR’s footprints to emulate their laudable achievements. You can help us do that with any bits of news you think is relevant for us to act on, or to include in our report to recommend rejection of approval of the Navy’s project due to a] insufficient evidence for the management of the public’s interest in preserving the mission of a heritage monument, and a reject6on of approval of the Navy’s project due to misrepresentation of evidence of no harm to critical wildlife and their habitats and sensitive ecosystems, and a rejection of the Navy’s project due to b] negative impact to the local economy and an unreasonable interference with the paramount policy of the state to preserve its fishing, recreation and wildlife aims, and c] for the prima facie violation of reasonable access for those with ADA recognized disabling effects in the presence of EMF radiation emissions. To volunteer and help us build our coalition by making calls to organizations and contacting private list serves- who are outraged when they hear of this travesty of an EMF Warfare Range in Olympic National Park- please contact Merry at merrycallahan@comcast.net.

DONATE, TOO: If you can donate funds, so that we can support legal representation and expand our organization infrastructure and materials in support of this project; your donation will be greatly appreciated and wisely used. Despite our ‘under construction banner Wireless Education Action’s site donation link is active and functioning at www.wirelesseducationaction.org. Please click on the ‘donate’ link and follow the Pay Pal instructions.

Follow by Email

Followers

About Me

While I have always been extremely health conscious and am presently in excellent health, I did become temporarily out-of-commission (i.e. I was really sick) in 2005 with a number of at the time unexplainable symptoms. I was quite puzzled at the time because I had been eating mainly organically grown food, drinking spring water, doing Yoga every morning, and going to the gym several times a week. In other words, I was doing everything one is supposed to do to stay healthy. I was not supposed to get sick. It took me six months before discovering or even imagining the main source of the problem - which was in fact "overexposure to electromagnetic" - especially microwave - radiation. I was living within 200 meters of two cell phone towers at the time and within 500 meters of a 3rd one with numerous WiFi signals bleeding into my apartment from adjacent neighbors. I developed a host of symptoms, which are found in what has been misleadingly described as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) -- but much more accurately described as Radio Wave or Microwave Sickness. Large numbers of people in the USA suddenly started getting sick in 1984...